Oscars 2012

And lo, a topic was created for all Oscar-related chatter in 2012.The Oscar nominations have just been announced! Check them out pretty much anywhere you go on the internet, or specifically over on the official site.So, what do you think?Edit: So, my initial 3 reactions:1. I don't really care about awards shows.2. Attack the Block should have a Best Costume Design nomination.4. Bridesmaids has a best screenplay nomination???

Comments

I follow your sentiments Simon - really stopped paying attention to awards shows and especially the Oscars a long time ago.A quick look at that list and they are still going for bland, predictable choices. Nice to see Gary Oldman finally get a nod though

I really think Andy Serkis should have gotten a nod for his role in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. He was genius in that, and I feel like he's been completely overlooked in all of his mo-cap roles. At least they got a visual effects nomination, but something tells me it won't win that.Overall, I can't really get excited about the nominees, since I haven't watched the Oscars in like 10 years, and don't really care about it anymore.

Haha, a very good point.Edit: Oh, and even though I haven't seen the film yet, I'm very surprised that Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross didn't get a nomination for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo soundtrack. It's incredible. Maybe a little too unconventional for the Oscars, though.

I live in LA, and I can tell you, most of the DTV programming nowadays is geared toward pumping up the whole concept of Hollywood as the source of all things. "Hollywood", as a city, doesn't actually exist. What it is in reality is a tourist area that's been WAY overbuilt with retail, and there's pressure to keep it going.There's nothing to see in "Hollywood", except street performers dressed in cartoon characters looking for tips, overpriced trinkets, Chinese-made souvenirs, and lousy pizza slices that cost $7.The truth is, Hollywood is becoming a dinosaur as independent studios sprout up everywhere bringing refreshing new approaches and styles to film.The Lou Wasserman days are over. Whoever "Hollywood" anoints as "winners" has little to do with reality anymore. Still just a bunch of insiders gladhanding each other, with a sprinkling of "divas of the day" as eye candy.Hahaha

Snubs:-Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II and Drive aren't nominated for Best Picture... but Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is? What's up with that? 96% and 93% Tomatometers aren't nominated, but a 48% is?-No Andy Serkis (Rise of the Planet of the Apes) or Alan Rickman (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II) for Best Supporting Actor? Now I haven't seen Drive yet, but from everything I've heard, Albert Brooks was supposed to be a frontrunner to win this category, wasn't he?-The Adventures of Tintin isn't nominated for Best Animated Feature?-Steven Spielberg isn't up for Best Director for War Horse?-Alexandre Desplat isn't nominated for any of the movies he scored in 2011? I'd say his score for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II is the best I've heard this year. Also... no Michael Giacchino, for Super 8? Come on.What really bothers me here... is that in order to draw in more viewers, the Academy has been desperately trying to appeal to a "younger" audience... yet they refuse to recognize films that that crowd would identify with. For example, why on earth aren't The Muppets or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II nominated for more awards? Not only do they appeal to the younger generation... they're both more critically acclaimed than many of the actual nominees.While I haven't seen The Artist yet (and I'm sure it's a fine movie), I just don't think it should win any awards. Yes, I'm sure it's a nice tribute to the silent film era... but this is 2012. Movies should win awards for being "achievements" in film... not for simply having "attractive subject matter". If Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II can't be honored for being the conclusion to the most "consistently great" film series ever (not to mention being the best-reviewed movie of the year), in the same sense that The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was... then fine. I'll be perfectly happy if Hugo goes home with the win. Like The Artist, it pays homage to "film history"... but does so in a way (with its 3D cinematography) that is an achievement in modern filmmaking.

1. I don't really care about awards shows.2. Attack the Block should have a Best Costume Design nomination.4. Bridesmaids has a best screenplay nomination???

Bridesmaids looked like a detestable film, and generally-speaking I'm subconsciously sexist in regards to female comedy and just can't stand it- but I thought it was a genuinely raucous, bizarrely heartfelt movie- and a bold choice to put as a screenplay nomination. Happy to see it.Attack The Block for Best Costume Design is reaching. There's so much out there, and I'd have to more-narrowly attribute the distinctness of that film to production design or VFX, not costuming. But that's just me.

Oh, and even though I haven't seen the film yet, I'm very surprised that Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross didn't get a nomination for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo soundtrack. It's incredible. Maybe a little too unconventional for the Oscars, though.

While I agree it's a fantastic score for listening- and I have it on iTunes and have praised how absolutely awesome it is, the truth of the matter is it does align somewhat too similarly with that of The Social Network's score- which not only won last year, but better-served the movie it was in. Not that Dragon Tattoo's music and tone don't work well together on-screen, but not as well as they should/you might picture it in only listening to the music, if that makes sense. And so the lack of the nod makes sense to me, doesn't nearly feel like a snub. Now Henry Jackman for X-Men or Desplat for HP7, on the otherhand...

-The Adventures of Tintin isn't nominated for Best Animated Feature?

That's a joke, right? Forgiving the fact that Rango has had the win sewn up since last March- there were so many better animated movies out there last year. Kungfu Panda 2 and Puss in Boots, while they may seem like shameless moneymakers, for instance- were both really great kid's movies. And even better, they were both more critically-acclaimed than Tintin or the Pixar's abomination.

-Steven Spielberg isn't up for Best Director for War Horse?

No. That list was too narrow for him, and the movie too schmaltzy to truly justify pushing any of the current nominees out. Now I liked War Horse, I liked it alot. But directorially, it was nothing supremely special. At least, not in the ranks of Malick or Scorsese. Not this time, at least. If I'd be pulling for someone snubbed as director, it wouldn't be Spielberg or Fincher, it is most-definitely Nicolas Winding Refn. But even then- it was a good list, hard to complain about.

-Alexandre Desplat isn't nominated for any of the movies he scored in 2011? I'd say his score for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II is the best I've heard this year. Also... no Michael Giacchino, for Super 8? Come on.

Giacchino has done much better work. Up, Star Trek, Speed Racer, Ratatouille, The Incredibles. He's good, as always. But like John Williams sometimes- his music this past year felt very recycled and phoned-in. Now, ironically, John Williams on the otherhand had a fantastic composing year in 2011. Nice to see him get recognized. Sad about Desplat with Tree of Life and HP7, though.

What really bothers me here... is that in order to draw in more viewers, the Academy has been desperately trying to appeal to a "younger" audience... yet they refuse to recognize films that that crowd would identify with. For example, why on earth aren't The Muppets or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II nominated for more awards? Not only do they appeal to the younger generation... they're both more critically acclaimed than many of the actual nominees.

This I actually like. While I agree with your sentiments about being refreshing and reconsidering certain styles or genres of films- I think it's a good integrity move not to pander your opinions and votes to appease the audience. I remember when I actually liked the MTV Movie Awards as a kid because they represented what was 'good' of the pop culture movies. Discernably quality material, you know? Now it's total pandering. Twilight, Twilight, Twilight. Ridiculous.I may become frustrated with the Academy's older-positioned opinions overall every now and then, too, but I respect that they keep their integrity with their taste, as is so often untrue of other awards and awards shows.

While I haven't seen The Artist yet (and I'm sure it's a fine movie), I just don't think it should win any awards.

Hey, don't knock it til you've seen it, man. It's original, poignant, and refreshingly different. Maybe that's because it hearkens back to an older time- but it's still something new and untested on the level it's on for being 2012, right? Give it a chance. Although I'm saddened not to see any recognition for Drive, Albert Brooks, Harry Potter 7 Part II, or The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo/Fincher- I think it's been a phenomenal year for cinema and many of the picks are well-deserved.With the major exception of the massively polarizing 'Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close', all the nominees seem pretty well-selected and matched.Michael Fassbender gets snubbed on a Best Actor nod, but because of that a little-known Mexican actor makes the cut for a fantastic performance in 'A Better Life', and Gary Oldman finally gets his due for 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy'. This is the trade-off that's made to be able to create 'Best Of' lists. It's just how it is, with any competitive ranking. Brad Pitt and George Clooney are nominated- Oh, no! How boring and typical! Except for the fact that they gave (matched with Oldman) the best performances of the year- and some of the best of their career. Truthfully. Brad Pitt in Moneyball and The Tree of Life together? No brainer.And while I'm saddened to see, say, Charlize Theron's exclusion from Best Actress or Albert Brooks from Supporting Actor- that gave room for Mara's turn in Dragon Tattoo, and the unconventional but worth inclusion of funnyman Jonah Hill for the excellent movie 'Moneyball'.Really pleased with the nominees, generally. 'The Tree of Life' gets it's due for Best Picture, Director, and Cinematography- and although David Fincher lost out- frankly last year was his year, not this one. And the list of best directors- Woody Allen, Alexander Payne, Martin Scorsese, Terrence Malick- may not seem refreshing to many at first glance, but it's certainly a great and decently bold list. A light drama, a family dramedy, a children's film, and an experimental period piece. That's a pretty decently broad pedigree.Likewise with Best Supporting Actor (which is, frankly, always the hardest category to win in) this was another 2007 year (when Alan Arkin, Mark Wahlberg, Eddie Murphy, and Jackie Earle Haley delivered decidedly different, hugely distinctive powerhouse supporting actor performances)- seeing Andy Serkis' name not on the list is personally disappointing for those that favor him, and certainly I thought he delivered a fantastic performance- but that doesn't make the Academy antiquated or close-minded for not letting him make the cut. Because I can guarantee you he was considered, even if he didn't make enough 'top 5' lists of the nominees. It was a damn hard year for supporting actors.Christopher Plummer as a newly-transitioned, terminally-ill gay dad in Beginners, anyone? Nick Nolte in Warrior? Kenneth Branagh as Lawrence Olivier? These were masterful performances. Career-high ones. And just because Serkis didn't make the cut, doesn't mean they should be diminished.It was a tough, tough year to vote for movies. And, truthfully, many of the nominees are very fairly spread throughout, and fairly ranked.Say what you want about 'Hollywood'. Lambast and loathe the Oscars all you want. To me they are validating, fun, and a good driving force behind wider audiences getting out and going to see sometimes overlooked, generally great filmmaking.Midnight in Paris, The Tree of Life, Moneyball, The Artist, Hugo, The Descendants, War Horse? Don't kid yourself- that's a fantastic list of accessible, fun, widely-ranging movies that were all really, really very good.Finally- did anyone else see Hugo? It's a 3D-centric, magical children's film from a hard-violence crime-drama director. And yet, it's dominating the Oscars this year. Does that not say anything to anyone? Things may not look like it, but tastes are changing- even if they aren't irreversibly shifting to mainstream youthful opinion.Also, Hugo is just a fantastic film. Massively recommended.

War Horse is being nominated for Best Picture? ... Ow...it hurts...I was half asleep during that movie; it was so boring. But I agree with its cinematography nomination.Hope Transformers wins for VFX. As silly as the movie was, that whole robot invasion sequence was AWESOME.

I just saw The Artist tonight and thought it was beautiful and inspiring. It'd definitely be my pick for best picture. At no point did it feel like a gimmick, and I can't really grasp why it was in the "Best Comedy or Musical" category at the Golden Globes, because it plays like a light-hearted drama most of the time. It seems like a lot of audiences weren't really sure what to make of it. The audience I was in tonight seemed like they thought everything was a gag of some kind, so there was a lot of laughing and chuckling in some very dramatic scenes. Quite strange, but I suppose most people these days probably don't normally watch silent films.I thought it was a very interesting reflection of modern film practices as well. Things definitely do skew younger and younger, and likening the decline of silent film in favor of talkies to the decline of film and the rise of digital was an interesting perspective. At least, that's how I read it. George writes off talkies as a gimmick in the same way that a lot of older filmmakers now write off digital production as a gimmick. Anyway, I loved it, and having seen it, jawajohnny's comment about it seems even more closed-minded than it did when I first read it. It's an achievement to make a strikingly original and enjoyable period piece, especially one that is so authentically produced that it very well could have been made in the 20s. I thought it was genius, and more than deserving of the praise it's received.